Homeschooling

[The_Boss_Giygas]

My friend Chris was homeschooled until highscool. Like a lot of teenager he fell in love with some girl, and they had been going out for about a year. His parents learned the girl he was dating wasn't a Christian and that they were kissing outside of marriage. Yes, I'm not kidding you. They were horribly upset that they were kissing. Apparently somewhere in the good book, kissing is strictly forbidden outside the marriage bed. Onward with my point. They kicked him out of the house. Now his parents are going to homeschool his remaining siblings all throughout highschool so they don't turn out to be like him. These children are brainwashed. That's what homeschooling effectively allows them to do. It's not right. Part of me wants homeschooling to be illegal. If it weren't the poor quality of so many of our public schools I would definitley support a ban on homeschooling.

Wow that's pretty whacked out, they where probably evangelicals those are the conservative of conservatives in the Christian branches.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I don't know if I agree with homeschooling. I think there should be an alternate to public schools. You could live in a district where the public schools aren't really up to par with the rest of the country, and therefore aren't really the best option. The thing is, you can be so sheltered when you're homeschooled. It makes it easier for children to be brainwashed. You say that they can recieve their socialization from church, but that's a completely inefficient answer. They are still being exposed to the same ideas that their parents espouse.

My friend Chris was homeschooled until highscool. Like a lot of teenager he fell in love with some girl, and they had been going out for about a year. His parents learned the girl he was dating wasn't a Christian and that they were kissing outside of marriage. Yes, I'm not kidding you. They were horribly upset that they were kissing. Apparently somewhere in the good book, kissing is strictly forbidden outside the marriage bed. Onward with my point. They kicked him out of the house. Now his parents are going to homeschool his remaining siblings all throughout highschool so they don't turn out to be like him. These children are brainwashed. That's what homeschooling effectively allows them to do. It's not right. Part of me wants homeschooling to be illegal. If it weren't the poor quality of so many of our public schools I would definitley support a ban on homeschooling.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your sentiment. It's the family's buisiness what ideology they teach their kids. Where in your story was Chris brainwashed? It seems like if the parents found out, they would have reacted that way whether he was in public school or not. The fact that they were Christian doesn't connect with the fact that Chris was neglected, and it doesn't connect to whether or not Chris was in homeschooling.

Just because an extreme Christian family is dysfunctional, doesn't mean you ought to take away the right for everyone else to use homeschooling in an effort to crack down on their practices. That's not right. That's taking away freedom of religion and freedom of raising your own child in one big swoop. We already have child protective services. If Chris was underage, someone should have called them and reported neglect. The allegations would be completely separate from ideological motivation, and perhaps then you could take away the homeschooling privilages for that one family.

Both myself and my friend almost got taken away from our parents for idiotic reasons, while my mom was actually ignored and allowed to be abused, so don't give government reason to assume any more power over children instead of parents. Especially in the name of cracking down on religion. That would be a disaster of human rights. They're totally inept as is.

 

[Exodd]

You can't deny either one, you just have to pick which path is better for your child.

People can, and should, deny the modern system of compulsory schooling.

The thing is, you can be so sheltered when you're homeschooled. It makes it easier for children to be brainwashed.

What do you think public schooling was designed for?

The first modern movement for compulsory state education stemmed directly from the Reformation. A prime force was Martin Luther. Luther repeatedly called for communities to establish public schools and to make attendance in them compulsory. ... What was the spirit behind Luther's call for compulsory state education? A common view is that it reflected the Reformers' democratic spirit and the desire to have everyone read the Bible, the presumption being that they wished to encourage each one to interpret the Bible for himself. The truth is quite otherwise. The Reformers advocated compulsory education for all as a means of inculcating the entire population with their particular religious views

http://mises.org/daily/2226

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:

1) To make good people. 2) To make good citizens. 3) To make each person his or her personal best. These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education's mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling's true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not

"to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. ... Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim ... is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States... and that is its aim everywhere else. "

http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Wait

That's not true in all cases. The homeschooling program I attended simply worked as another school in the district and provided free schoolbooks.

And even if you did have to purchase the books; what would the cost come out to...maybe a hundred, two hundred dollars altogether? That's less than one bill or rent/mortage on a parent's budget, and only once every six months. It's well worth it.

My parents did, in fact, have to purchase books. I'm not certain about the cost (and I'm sure it varied from year to year), but we did have to invest some money as well as time searching for the right books. Yes--it was well worth it.

...siblings & neighbors (omgosh it's local!)

omgosh none of the anti-homeschool people care about siblings! (I'm being sarcastic. The point here is that people against homeschoolong tend to view socializing in narrow terms: "Kids need to spend time with other kids their own age.")

Ultimately I'm sick of how this argument of how homeschooling robs you of social experience keeps coming up. For one, kids are not always socially inept because they went to homeschooling. That's an assumed cause and effect. Practically nobody has acknowledged that sometimes kids are in homeschooling because they were already suffering socially, and can't handle regular school, and therefore their grades were falling. So it's more important to tend to their grades personally than it is to throw them in the water and watch them sink. If you know they can't swim, why would you knowingly let them sink?

Ultimately you want to take swimming slowly. Put them in homeschooling and then if you want them to gain "social experience" introduce them to that climate slowly afterwards. That's another thing. It's not always an either/or. Homescholing isn't a threat to public school. You can experience both in your life.

Those arguing for homeschooling aren't trying to eliminate public school, even if they speak ill of it, they're just trying to make a case for homeschooling being allowed to exist. On the other hand, many people arguing against homeschooling talk of abolishing it. So it's clear that the homeschooling advocates are not harmful and are actually just defending their own preferred practices.

You know, that reminds me of something that my mom likes to repeat: Some people say "You shouldn't shelter kids like that! They won't know what to do in the real world!" But some home educators have made an analogy to show why this criticism is invalid. They say, "Of course I want to shelter my children! What do you do in the winter? You put a coat on your children!" Children need to be protected from some things. If your child is one who is not able to keep up with his education (the most important goal) in an environment with many other kids, it isn't wise to just let their education suffer.

Apparently somewhere in the good book, kissing is strictly forbidden outside the marriage bed.

What?! Haven't you read I Corinthians 7:1? It says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (NKJV). As anyone knows, the apostle Paul had teenagers specifically in mind here.

Not. This passage indicates that for people who are going to do a specific kind of work in the service of the Lord, being unmarried would be better, so as not to have an added responsibility.

Now on to the more serious part of my response:

I don't know if I agree with homeschooling. I think there should be an alternate to public schools. You could live in a district where the public schools aren't really up to par with the rest of the country, and therefore aren't really the best option. The thing is, you can be so sheltered when you're homeschooled. It makes it easier for children to be brainwashed. You say that they can recieve their socialization from church, but that's a completely inefficient answer. They are still being exposed to the same ideas that their parents espouse.

My friend Chris was homeschooled until highscool. Like a lot of teenager he fell in love with some girl, and they had been going out for about a year. His parents learned the girl he was dating wasn't a Christian and that they were kissing outside of marriage. Yes, I'm not kidding you. They were horribly upset that they were kissing. Apparently somewhere in the good book, kissing is strictly forbidden outside the marriage bed. Onward with my point. They kicked him out of the house. Now his parents are going to homeschool his remaining siblings all throughout highschool so they don't turn out to be like him. These children are brainwashed. That's what homeschooling effectively allows them to do. It's not right. Part of me wants homeschooling to be illegal. If it weren't the poor quality of so many of our public schools I would definitley support a ban on homeschooling.

I would be tempted to view this harshly, but I don't. Instead, I understand this criticism to some degree. I don't think belief in God should be a matter of personal, subjective preference, but instead, that it should be a genuine question of fact. Thus I examine multiple belief systems. I've read atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins. I've read the once-Fundamentalist, now hyper-skeptical textual critic Bart Ehrman.

But I'm twenty-two years old. As SunnyC indicated, parents have a right to teach their views to their children. All groups do this. The Muslims do it. The Hindus do it. The atheists teach their views to their children. even those who claim nobody should teach their views to their children teach the "don't teach your view" view! As a matter of fact, isn't it atheists that wish to remove all mention of God from schools so that people won't be influenced by talk of Him?

So while there is merit to your criticism, look at it another way: Muslims don't seem to want their children influenced by Buddhism (much less Christianity!). Atheists seem against the idea of any religion presented in a way that could influence their kids (or anyone else's!). So, if Christians don't want their kids influenced by some other beliefs, that is their right.

Should people examine other beliefs? Yes. But that is their business. It is the noble thing to do--but it should not be required for children. Children can have a much more difficult time spotting error than adults. So if a teacher--be they an atheist, Buddhist, or evangelical Christian--decides to use exaggeration, distortion, or outright untruth to influence children, the damage may be difficult to reverse.

It is not brainwashing to present only your own view to your children. Let them look into diverse viewpoints when they are adults.

 

[Ethan]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your sentiment. It's the family's buisiness what ideology they teach their kids. Where in your story was Chris brainwashed? It seems like if the parents found out, they would have reacted that way whether he was in public school or not. The fact that they were Christian doesn't connect with the fact that Chris was neglected, and it doesn't connect to whether or not Chris was in homeschooling.

Just because an extreme Christian family is dysfunctional, doesn't mean you ought to take away the right for everyone else to use homeschooling in an effort to crack down on their practices. That's not right. That's taking away freedom of religion and freedom of raising your own child in one big swoop. We already have child protective services. If Chris was underage, someone should have called them and reported neglect. The allegations would be completely separate from ideological motivation, and perhaps then you could take away the homeschooling privilages for that one family.

Both myself and my friend almost got taken away from our parents for idiotic reasons, while my mom was actually ignored and allowed to be abused, so don't give government reason to assume any more power over children instead of parents. Especially in the name of cracking down on religion. That would be a disaster of human rights. They're totally inept as is.

Your first paragraph attacks a facet of my argument that simply doesn't exist. The argument wasn't about Chris. He was simply brought up to illustrate the mindset of the parents I brought up. The focus I had was on his siblings. It's not just a case of that one "dysfunctional Christian family" Since Christianity is such a large religion, smaller churches tend to delve more into cult like behavior and away from the mainstream. I don't have statistics to support that ofcourse, but I think that would be a logical conclusion. Its easier for smaller, tighter, closer knit factions to spin out of control than larger ones simply because it's easier to convince a smaller audience than a larger one. My point is that I think its terribly cruel and unfair for the remaining children to only be exposed to one view. The only social interaction they recieve outside of home is Church, where they ofcourse espouse the exact views of their parents.

The reason why that's an issue on a moral level as in Chris's families case, is because his siblings will effectively be turned against him. If they have no contact with him, and their family and as well as their community is telling them that their brother is a sinner that will obviously breed contempt over a prolonged period of time. It essentially robs them of a meaningful relationship with their brother. That's not right. It's not okay.

I also never said anything about the morality of parents teaching their views to their children. I agree its their right to do that. There's a difference between teaching your views to your children and hiding them from other views. The former, you are right. Everyone passes down their views no matter what they believe, it can't be avoided. This leads to my next point. I don't begrudge the effectiveness of homeschooling. I'm aware that homeschool kids do just as well if not better when compared to public school children. The problem lies with how you can shelter your children. And I don't mean shelter socially. As you brought up homeschool kids can easily fix that problem. I mean sheltering intellectually. Children need to understand and be aware of the different world views that other people have.

 

[Eloi]

Apparently somewhere in the good book, kissing is strictly forbidden outside the marriage bed.

There is no such verse, I can assure you. Romans 16:16 "Greet one another with a holy kiss."; 2 Corinthians 13:12 "Greet one another with a holy kiss." and more. Kissing was a way to greet people in Jesus' time, there would be no way that the Bible forbid it. I am thinking Chris might have been lying in the degree of intimacy they were engaged in.

 

[Ethan]

First of all I was kidding. Second of all his mom actually called his girlfriends parents to inform them they were kissing. There wasn't any lying involved. They started having sex AFTER he was kicked out of the house. Brilliantly ironic.

 

[Aquadon]

I don't know if I agree with homeschooling. I think there should be an alternate to public schools.

Ever private country in the school says hello. Too bad they cost an arm and a leg in order to get into, which is a problem.

I agree that some homeschoolers can really go off the "deep end", however I do understand what they're getting at. Certain Public schools are just awful, just because there really isn't a way that they can challenge certain people. I wasn't really challenged in High School, which is a shame, but at the same time I turned out ok. One homeschooler I knew ran Cross Country with my high school, and he was a little "off". Not saying he was an idiot or a weirdo, but he had quirks and was a full on rebel when it came to going out to parties and stuff. I actually met his parents though who seemed really nice (apparently they offered to host a few get-togethers for the CC Team and he refused, yet would still go on about how crazy they were), so I'm not quite sure who's the one running the charade out there; the kids who want more action in their lives, or the overprotective parents (here we go into that other thread's turf though).

 

[CSolarstorm]

Your first paragraph attacks a facet of my argument that simply doesn't exist. The argument wasn't about Chris. He was simply brought up to illustrate the mindset of the parents I brought up. The focus I had was on his siblings.

When I read your story, more of it seemed to be more about the outrage over what they did to Chris, which could be rectified with outside legal action, than the bond between him and his siblings. My apologies.

It's not just a case of that one "dysfunctional Christian family" Since Christianity is such a large religion, smaller churches tend to delve more into cult like behavior and away from the mainstream. I don't have statistics to support that ofcourse, but I think that would be a logical conclusion. Its easier for smaller, tighter, closer knit factions to spin out of control than larger ones simply because it's easier to convince a smaller audience than a larger one.

It can be the case of many dysfunctional Christian families. That's essentially what'd I'd call the cult-like branches of Christianity that banish their teenager from the home just because they found them kissing a girl. Where did he go, anyway? Did they throw him out on the street or just send him to a relative's care?

In any case, this is not the fault of homeschooling. Just because there are a number of clients who abuse the service, does not mean you abolish the service for all clients. And, the parents would be overbearing parents regardless of whether or not they were given full time to teach their children. They could put their kids in a religious private school and the same thing would happen. Or their kids could go to public school and the exact opposite and equally disasterous thing could happen; they would be public school students without approving parents. Either way, the parents are the problematic force in this story...not homeschooling.

My point is that I think its terribly cruel and unfair for the remaining children to only be exposed to one view. The only social interaction they recieve outside of home is Church, where they ofcourse espouse the exact views of their parents.

The reason why that's an issue on a moral level as in Chris's families case, is because his siblings will effectively be turned against him. If they have no contact with him, and their family and as well as their community is telling them that their brother is a sinner that will obviously breed contempt over a prolonged period of time. It essentially robs them of a meaningful relationship with their brother. That's not right. It's not okay.

I don't know the details of your anecdote like you do, but the way I see it, I highly doubt his siblings are just empty vessels waiting to be filled with every word of the parents' faux-principles. When a child becomes a teenager, if not even earlier, they develop a sort of self-reliance, their own version of right and wrong, and start experimenting and doing things of...well, their own free will.

If you question under what environmental influences they are able to develop an opposing position, and hence free will in; there's two factors here; their connection to their brother Chris, and their own sex drives when they get older. Now that they have to choose between their bond for him and the words of their parents and church, that ought to cause some dissonance in their mind, and hence, critical thinking.

Obviously Chris had to break free from his parents' influence at some point in order to kiss someone out of wedlock. I wouldn't worry about the siblings then; they'll do the same thing when they're older, but maybe they won't have the misfortune to be caught. And then after they've had these experiences, common sense and empathy will probably lead them to follow Chris, not ostracize him, and in fact they'll probably be relieved that Chris set an example for them to be themselves.

The most common consequence of overbearing parents is that their kids rebel.

This leads to my next point. I don't begrudge the effectiveness of homeschooling. I'm aware that homeschool kids do just as well if not better when compared to public school children. The problem lies with how you can shelter your children. And I don't mean shelter socially. As you brought up homeschool kids can easily fix that problem. I mean sheltering intellectually. Children need to understand and be aware of the different world views that other people have.

Again, it relies on the aptitude of the parent and the independant path that the child chooses to take once they are of an age where they feel something of their own. Homeschooling relies on the idea that people/families are competant enough to handle themselves.

There are going to be some families, in all the population of the country, who are in fact, not competant enough to operate the "right way". It's the consequence of taking a risk. To cushion that blow, we can make standards and required courses for homeschooling programs and abolish the ones that don't comply with those standards. And of course, there's the law. After that, we have to just leave the people be who want to be left be and respect that. Truth always breaks out in the end, even if it's in the form of tragedy and rebellion, and to some point we have to let individuals experience that happening for themselves and not try to control them, lest we keep them from their own process of self-discovery.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

Your first paragraph attacks a facet of my argument that simply doesn't exist.

Hmm...why don't you look back at what you said?

These children are brainwashed. That's what homeschooling effectively allows them to do. It's not right. Part of me wants homeschooling to be illegal. If it weren't the poor quality of so many of our public schools I would definitley support a ban on homeschooling.

(Emphasis added)

Take note of the underlined parts, Ethan. SunnyC was, most likely, responding to those parts in his first paragraph. If you didn't mean that parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their own kids the ideology that they the parents hold, you really might want to retract those statements. But if you did mean what you said in those statements...I think we already covered those topics.

The argument wasn't about Chris. He was simply brought up to illustrate the mindset of the parents I brought up. The focus I had was on his siblings. It's not just a case of that one "dysfunctional Christian family"

Unless you have other examples, preferably ones from various demographic groups, it is an isolated case.

Since Christianity is such a large religion, smaller churches tend to delve more into cult like behavior and away from the mainstream. I don't have statistics to support that ofcourse, but I think that would be a logical conclusion.

And there's a greater chance for corruption in the leadership of large churches. So what's the dif? Churches of any size have a chance for problems. But what you're not taking into account is how closely each church follows the Bible. That makes a lot of difference.

My point is that I think its terribly cruel and unfair for the remaining children to only be exposed to one view.

Do you wanna know what cruelty and injustice looks like? The Holocaust. I don't want to hear anything about not letting your kids be exposed to more than one view be cruel. Is it cruel to not put your kids in an environment in which the viewpoint that you think is correct and is good for them will be ridculed by kids and teachers alike? What about when kids are young and are not that good at discerning the truth about each side of an argument? Do you honestly think that public school is the ideal place for any other ideology besides the ideology of the school itself?

Ethan, you should know better than to make statements like that.

The only social interaction they recieve outside of home is Church, where they ofcourse espouse the exact views of their parents.

Not always. I assure you that I don't agree with every single thing that the pastor of my church says. If I may be so bold as to say this, I think that there is a problem if you agree with every single thing that the pastor says, to the letter. This is a problem especially when someone accepts the pastor's word without question. Also, not every member of the church holds the same viewpoint. There are a few men in my church who I think are flat-out wrong on a few things.

The reason why that's an issue on a moral level as in Chris's families case, is because his siblings will effectively be turned against him.

Only if the siblings don't know the whole story and never ever see Chris again will they be turned against Chris. And even that is not a guarantee.

But who or what is to blame for this? The Bible? The way that their church interpreted the Bible? The parent's interpretation of the Bible or their interpretation of what the pastor said? It seems that there are a number of possible factors here and you have just latched onto one of them. I'm not sure you have enough info to make the judgement you have given here.

If they have no contact with him, and their family and as well as their community is telling them that their brother is a sinner that will obviously breed contempt over a prolonged period of time. It essentially robs them of a meaningful relationship with their brother. That's not right. It's not okay.

Once again, you don't know that they'll have no contact with him. And their community? What about neighbors? Are there no nieghbors that might form an opinion? I'm not sure you have enough info to make as strong a statement as you have.

I also never said anything about the morality of parents teaching their views to their children. I agree its their right to do that.

This quote disagrees:

These children are brainwashed. That's what homeschooling effectively allows them to do. It's not right. Part of me wants homeschooling to be illegal. If it weren't the poor quality of so many of our public schools I would definitley support a ban on homeschooling.

(Emphasis added)

There's a difference between teaching your views to your children and hiding them from other views.

Yes, but who should decide how kids are exposed to other viewpoints? The parents. My parents never taught me about the fine points of the interaction between genetics mutation and the way new species come to be according to evolution, or anything that was really in depth about evolution. But we did talk about it. It wasn't something that my parents hid away in a dark corner of the house and said, "Do not discuss this, for in the day that you do, you will surely die." As stated previously, there is a difference between hiding and sheltering.

This leads to my next point. I don't begrudge the effectiveness of homeschooling. I'm aware that homeschool kids do just as well if not better when compared to public school children. The problem lies with how you can shelter your children. And I don't mean shelter socially. As you brought up homeschool kids can easily fix that problem. I mean sheltering intellectually. Children need to understand and be aware of the different world views that other people have.

BZZZT! There is a problem with you statement "sheltering intellectually." Telling someone about a Buddist world view or a Hindu world view is not neccesarily going to help a child's intellectual development. As I stated previously, I wasn't really taught much about evolution. I did learn some about different religions, cults, and opinions (I was taught about those in my church, btw. The pastor once taught my Sunday school class about different world views. There were similar studies, too.) but I am getting A's in all my classes at college.

I think you might want to rethink that statement, Ethan.

 

[Ethan]

I never found taking a few paragraphs and making your response 50 times it's size very necessary. I'll respond to SS since he more or less made the same points.

(Emphasis added)

Take note of the underlined parts, Ethan. SunnyC was, most likely, responding to those parts in his first paragraph. If you didn't mean that parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their own kids the ideology that they the parents hold, you really might want to retract those statements. But if you did mean what you said in those statements...I think we already covered those topics.

What you're talking about isn't even relevant. SunnyC was talking about Chris, and I clarified that Chris isn't my main point. Nothing in your paragraph here refutes that notion but addresses something completely different. Further more I clarified that its not simply the teaching of their views that I'm against, its keeping them away from all other views and exposing the to one that constitutes as brainwashing in my opinion. If you had read my post thoroughly you would have realized this.

Do you wanna know what cruelty and injustice looks like? The Holocaust. I don't want to hear anything about not letting your kids be exposed to more than one view be cruel. Is it cruel to not put your kids in an environment in which the viewpoint that you think is correct and is good for them will be ridculed by kids and teachers alike? What about when kids are young and are not that good at discerning the truth about each side of an argument? Do you honestly think that public school is the ideal place for any other ideology besides the ideology of the school itself?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlVZNxa8qpU

And now you're just being silly anyway. You're making the fallacy that simply because x is way more morally apprehensible than z, than somehow z is more acceptable. If the viewpoint you're talking about is Christianity than no, there are laws that state that teachers cannot impose religious or political beliefs. When children are younger they don't even here much about those issues in school anyway. World religion isn't a popular topic for third grade obviously. Don't attempt to guilt trip me.

Unless you have other examples, preferably ones from various demographic groups, it is an isolated case

Here's another "isolated case"

Same link as above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlVZNxa8qpU

After all they are only teaching their kids their view of the world, which is legally their right as both you and SunnyC state. The only difference is that their views are more disliked by the mainstream. Would you like to step forward and say they aren't brainwashed?

Now obviously I know not every person that's homeschooled is a WBC cult member. Don't attempt to make that ploy. Simply illustrating a point here.

But who or what is to blame for this? The Bible? The way that their church interpreted the Bible? The parent's interpretation of the Bible or their interpretation of what the pastor said? It seems that there are a number of possible factors here and you have just latched onto one of them. I'm not sure you have enough info to make the judgement you have given here.

It doesn't matter what they believed or what interpretation of the bible they had. The parents are to blame, for simple bad parenting. I don't know how the questions you are proposing are even relevant.

Once again, you don't know that they'll have no contact with him. And their community? What about neighbors? Are there no nieghbors that might form an opinion? I'm not sure you have enough info to make as strong a statement as you have.

I find it interesting that you're telling me what I do and do not know about a situation you are not familiar with. I do know that they won't have contact with him until they graduate highschool because that's the ruling his parents have given. They aren't allowed to see him.

And once again when you attempt to show me I contradicted myself you fail to acknowledge my clarifications making that a non issue.

Oh and another example;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac&NR=1

Not really strongly related to homeschooling though considering it's a camp.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I never found taking a few paragraphs and making your response 50 times it's size very necessary. I'll respond to SS since he more or less made the same points.

Pardon me, but we are on the same side, but SS doesn't represent me. My points were quite different. >> I addressed your main premise of the bond between Chris and his siblings.

I'm sorry if I came across as too hostile, it is your friend after all.

 

[GilligBoi]

I think its fine if the parent makes sure that the child gets outside social interactions. If a kid is alone too long they get depressed and don;t know how to handle themselves in the real world.

The second thing is that they must be able to prepare their child for whatever the next step is- A GED, college or mabey its just temporary till they get to X grade. The kid has to be taught properly whatever the circumstances so he/she can have a sucessful life.

 

[Profesco]

Do you honestly think that public school is the ideal place for any other ideology besides the ideology of the school itself?

I'm not sure I understand what this questions is getting at. An ideal place for what other ideologies, exactly? Do you mean religious beliefs? And what do you mean by "ideal place?"

No public school is going to be an incubator for any single religious belief, period. And no public school espouses any particular religious belief, including any non-Christian ones. The "ideology" of every public school - at least in the US where public schools are secular (which means secular from every religion, not just Christianity) - is simply one of education. Nothing anti-Christian, if that's what you're worried about - or at least no more anti-Christian than anti-Taoist, anti-Jainist, anti-Muslim, or whatever else we can oppose. Public schools are by law not allowed to favor or preach any religion in particular, Christian or otherwise. It is as unbiased and impartial as it could be. There is no sinister public school ideology to fear.

BZZZT! There is a problem with you statement "sheltering intellectually." Telling someone about a Buddist world view or a Hindu world view is not neccesarily going to help a child's intellectual development. As I stated previously, I wasn't really taught much about evolution. I did learn some about different religions, cults, and opinions (I was taught about those in my church, btw. The pastor once taught my Sunday school class about different world views. There were similar studies, too.) but I am getting A's in all my classes at college.

I think you might want to rethink that statement, Ethan.

I think Ethan's point was not that a person's intellectual capabilities are dampened or hindered by not learning about other religions, sciences, world views, or whatever - in fact, he does go on to say he acknowledges that homeschooled students are capable of equal if not better performance by general academic standards - but that by "intellectual sheltering" is meant the person does not receive equal and impartial education (from an instructor qualified enough and experienced enough to teach them) in those religions, sciences, and world views with which the homeschooler disagrees.

I am guessing, of course.

 

[anotherpromise]

I'm homeschooled and I'm not deprived, I do a lot at my church and with sports, personal experiences are choices, if someone chooses not to get out and be active, their loss. It's not all homeschoolers.

 

[cazatron]

there was a kid i went to college with who was homeschooled, he was the least popular person in the place because he hadn't gone to any social events for years and was therefore unable to gain an understanding of the social conventions the rest of us just naturally pick up at places like school. he was the most annoying creature i've ever met because he still had the infantile opinion that it was funny to annoy people by poking them and deliberately acting smug about his own opinion. Obviousely i don't believe that everyone with a similar situation as him turns out that way but this is my only frame of reference for this subject.

 

[LiChampion]

(where to start so much to say) I think that in schools (not just public but any kind of schools not just public) you are forced to interact with people this can be very good or very bad some people make a lot a friends others get bullied, homeschool kids don't have this again could be very good or very bad some get to advance well on their studies and have there social contacts somewhere else others might be anti-social or not learn what they need. So this leaves the question is homeschool better or worse, it depends on a lot of things. Is homeschool child deprives of experience? In my opinion yes not just because they can't interact with people but because they can't interact with someone with a different way of thinking besides the teacher(s) and they might become narrow minded (it's might as in it is possible or not, so don't hit me sunny) and even if the get a social experience it can't be trough homeschool.

 

[CSolarstorm]

(where to start so much to say) I think that in schools (not just public but any kind of schools not just public) you are forced to interact with people this can be very good or very bad some people make a lot a friends others get bullied, homeschool kids don't have this again could be very good or very bad some get to advance well on their studies and have there social contacts somewhere else others might be anti-social or not learn what they need. So this leaves the question is homeschool better or worse, it depends on a lot of things. Is homeschool child deprives of experience? In my opinion yes not just because they can't interact with people but because they can't interact with someone with a different way of thinking besides the teacher(s) and they might become narrow minded (it's might as in it is possible or not, so don't hit me sunny) and even if the get a social experience it can't be trough homeschool.

Aw I won't hit you.

It is a possibility that people in homeschooling may be narrow minded. It depends on how the particular homeschooling program works and how their parents use it to raise their children. Just like you said though, it's only a might. It's a risk, in other words.

To tell the truth, just to sympathize with this downpour of people coming out and saying they knew someone who went to homeschooling and came out a snob; I also knew people like that. One of my best friends lived quite a sheltered live and did nearly everything with her single mom. And it showed in her personality. She knew more about distant tropical species than she did about other people. On the other hand, when she transferred to public high school, she got all A's, completed early community college courses in graphic design and German language. And if you understood, her she was a great friend. Sure, she was different, and she was kind of out there. But she has the rest of her life to figure out people. There's only the first eighteen years of your life to get a free public education in your formative period and do it right.

 

[weirdamanda]

I was homeschool all through elementary school, then I merged into a public middle school. This may shock some, so those with weak hearts might want to stop reading, but I wasn't some socially awkward kid. Of course it was hard to make friends that had other friends since they were in first grade. But it wasn't impossible, proof being that I still have my friends I made from middle school, and I'm in college.

Because of my homeschool, then public schooling, I have friends who have been homeschooled and those who were strictly public school. And I found that kids who go to public school can be just as socially awkward as people steriotype homeschoolers to be.

From an education viewpoint, homeschooling was a better system. I found that the public schools I went to educated to test, not to learn. My mom was more concered with "Do you understand what this means? Do you understand the significance of this? Do you know how this relates to what we've been learning?" Rather then, "Remember these dates. Know these men. Contrust this thesis this way, every time. Use this formula."